A New Path to Divorce Without Fault

Singaporean writer Don Shiau, 45, and his wife waited almost three years before filing for divorce, holding out for a new legal option that let them part without blaming each other. On 1 July 2024, divorce by mutual agreement came into effect, allowing couples to jointly acknowledge that their marriage has broken down irretrievably, rather than citing unreasonable behaviour, adultery or separation. For Shiau, who had no major deal‑breaker like abuse or adultery, the fault‑based facts simply did not fit his experience.

Under the new fact, couples must show they have genuinely tried to save the marriage — through counselling, mediation or advice from trusted sources — and explain to the Family Justice Courts why reconciliation has failed. Shiau and his former wife attended 25 marriage counselling sessions and a further five discernment counselling sessions before concluding that further efforts were futile. Their divorce was finalised within four months of filing.

One in five civil divorces in Singapore in 2025 used the mutual agreement fact, according to the Department of Statistics’ marriage and divorce data released on 10 July 2026, making it the third‑most common reason after unreasonable behavior and separation of at least three years. Lawyers say the option has not made divorce easier; instead, it has reduced emotional distress by removing the need for spouses to play the roles of accuser and accused.

How Mutual Agreement Reduces Hostility

Reducing the Need for Blame

Before July 2024, couples who could not agree on a fault‑based ground often had to wait years living apart. With mutual agreement, both spouses can simply state that the union has broken down, without one being cast as the wrongdoer. Gloria James‑Civetta, head lawyer of Gloria James‑Civetta & Co, notes that fault‑based facts force parties to revisit painful events, heightening feelings of anger, humiliation and resentment. The new route, she says, avoids this adversarial dynamic.

A Process That Protects Children

Family lawyer Jessica Chow of PKWA Law Practice points out that when parents avoid a contest over blame, they are generally better able to communicate and work together on decisions affecting their children. The court’s scrutiny remains rigorous: couples must detail what went wrong and what they did to try to save the marriage. If the court believes there is still a real prospect of reconciliation, it can delay or refuse the divorce.

Not an Easy Way Out

Rajan Chettiar, managing director of Rajan Chettiar LLC, stresses that mutual agreement is the only fact that requires a documented attempt at repair. The statistics confirm that the new option has not led to more divorces. Lawyers say that couples do not take the decision lightly, and introducing a less hostile path simply allows those already determined to separate to do so with less damage to themselves and their families.

Practical Steps for Couples Considering This Option

  • Attend counselling early and keep records: The court expects evidence of genuine attempts at reconciliation. Book marriage or discernment counselling and keep session notes or letters from counsellors showing your efforts.
  • Ensure both parties are willing to cooperate: Mutual agreement works only if both spouses agree the marriage has broken down and can jointly describe the breakdown. If one side is reluctant or wants to assign blame, this fact will not be granted.
  • Be prepared to explain what went wrong: Even without fault, you must still give the court a detailed account of why the marriage is irreparable. Work with a lawyer to articulate your story clearly and calmly.
  • Involve children in the discussion with sensitivity: Because mutual agreement fosters a less combative atmosphere, parents can more easily negotiate parenting arrangements without revisiting grievances. Keep that focus when planning post‑divorce communication.